Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?

[metis]

What doesn't make sense is to follow the Pharisee of Pharisees, and his hypocrisy (leaven), who was the "foremost" sinner, such as a son of the devil (1 John 3:8).

Sorry, but not only doesn't that make any sense as it also doesn't answer why the Apostles and their disciples had anything to do with him?

On top of that, you have totally screwed-up Peter's role within the early Church, such as when the Apostles are mentioned as a group, Peter's name is almost always first, plus in some narratives it says, "Peter and the others...".

IOW, you're inventing your own "bible", thus there's nowhere to go with this any further.

 

[2ndpillar]

Sorry, but not only doesn't that make any sense as it also doesn't answer why the Apostles and their disciples had anything to do with him?

On top of that, you have totally screwed-up Peter's role within the early Church, such as when the Apostles are mentioned as a group, Peter's name is almost always first, plus in some narratives it says, "Peter and the others...".

IOW, you're inventing your own "bible", thus there's nowhere to go with this any further.

I don't know, I am thinking that Judas, a fellow "shepherd" (Zechariah 11:12-13 & 17) of Peter, the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17) is also included. With respect to Peter being listed and chosen "first", you will have to listen to Yeshua, in what he says to Peter, the "first shall be last" (Matthew 19:27-30) with respect to the followers of Yeshua and their rewards. Keep in mind that king Saul was chosen before king David. David will rule the kingdom (Ezekiel 37:24), whereas Saul is not even mentioned at that time. As for Peter, Yeshua said for everyone who denies me, I will deny them before my Father. Kind of a blurry future for Peter, and with respect to his followers, a bleak time as well (Isaiah 22:15-25).

 

[Muffled]

" what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power."

What Hellenist-Paul wrote and his associates and the Pauline-Church followed him in making the basic creeds of Pauline-Christianity was against the teachings of Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, that reflects/suggests that Paul's source was most certainly the Evil-Satan, and none else, one gets to know , please. Right?

Regards

I believe Jesus is the Holy Spirit and He is not going to contradict himself when informing Paul.

 

[David Davidovich]

it seems like you just contradicted yourself. If Hashem dictated it, then Hashem wrote it.

So, I'm not sure what we are discussing here... you seem to say one thing and then turn around and say something different.

This is a really interesting discussion, but I had to butt in to say that sometimes with long threads, the lines can get blurred and sometimes we misread what has been said. I know it's happened to me. Because in post #81 @Ehav4Ever said:

Again, according to Jewish sources the book of Melakhim was not written or dictated by Hashem. Thus, it is a history where Yirmeyahu chose what the content was and given that Yirmeyahu wrote in the Hebrew of his day reading it in Hebrew is way more reliable to understand than an English translation.



I did not say that the book of Melakhim was written by Hashem. I stated that the Hebrew Torah (which is five books) was written by Mosheh (Moses) which was dictated and shown to him by Hashem. Melakhim was written by Yirmeyahu w/o dictation from Hashem.

color is mine

Therefore, @Ken, @Ehav4Ever did not contradict himself as far as what he said about what books of the Hebrew text were dictated by Hashem and what books weren't.

 

[Kenny]

This is a really interesting discussion, but I had to butt in to say that sometimes with long threads, the lines can get blurred and sometimes we misread what has been said. I know it's happened to me. Because in post #81 @Ehav4Ever said:



color is mine

Therefore, @Ken, @Ehav4Ever did not contradict himself as far as what he said about what books of the Hebrew text were dictated by Hashem and what books weren't.

Therefore, @Ken, @Ehav4Ever did not contradict himself as far as what he said about what books of the Hebrew text were dictated by Hashem and what books weren't.[/QUOTE]

Again, according to Jewish sources the book of Melakhim was not written or dictated by Hashem. Thus, it is a history where Yirmeyahu chose what the content was and given that Yirmeyahu wrote in the Hebrew of his day reading it in Hebrew is way more reliable to understand than an English translation.



I did not say that the book of Melakhim was written by Hashem. I stated that the Hebrew Torah (which is five books) was written by Mosheh (Moses) which was dictated and shown to him by Hashem. Melakhim was written by Yirmeyahu w/o dictation from Hashem.

This is a really interesting discussion, but I had to butt in to say that sometimes with long threads, the lines can get blurred and sometimes we misread what has been said. I know it's happened to me. Because in post #81 @Ehav4Ever said:

Thank you... So, my statement was correct? if the dictation was from Hashem, then Hashem is still the author?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

it seems like you just contradicted yourself.

What David is talking about is that your statement above about what I wrote is incorrect. I.e. I clearly stated that Hashem dictated the text and structure of the Torah to Mosheh ben-Amram. This was not the case with the text of Melakhim. Hashem did not dictate the text or the structure of Melakhim to Yirmeyahu.

Of course, Torath Mosheh Jews, claim that Hashem by way of dictation is the author of the Torah. We were the first to say that. Yet, the text of Melakhim, which was being discussed, was not dictated by Hashem to Yirmeyahu. BTW, the text of Melakhim is not a part of the Torah.

As David pointed out, the context, of what was being discussed was summed up by me in post #81 HERE.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just to requote what part of this discussion where this issue came up, this was more earlier response.

Further, as I wrote earlier.

Ehav4Ever wrote:
I am saying two things.

1. Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish claim that the entire written Torah was dictacted by Hashem to Mosheh. I.e. from start to finish, including the spellings, spacings, letter sizes, etc. all came from Hashem and Mosheh (Moses) simply copied what he was shown/told to write.
   • Further, according to Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews Mosheh (Moses) did not get to decide what information went into the Torah scroll. He also had no opinions that were entered into the text. Whatever stories Hashem told him to put in the written text he did that, what ever events/instructions, failings, etc. were all things he wrote exactly as it had been given to him.
2. The Hebrew text called (מלכים א) Melakhim Aleph was written by Yirmeyahu HaNavi and was not dictated to him by Hashem. Thus, it is not on the level of the Torah, as far as Torath Mosheh Jews have always been concerned.

 

[Kenny]

What David is talking about is that your statement above about what I wrote is incorrect. I.e. I clearly stated that Hashem dictated the text and structure of the Torah to Mosheh ben-Amram. This was not the case with the text of Melakhim. Hashem did not dictate the text or the structure of Melakhim to Yirmeyahu.

Of course, Torath Mosheh Jews, claim that Hashem by way of dictation is the author of the Torah. We were the first to say that. Yet, the text of Melakhim, which was being discussed, was not dictated by Hashem to Yirmeyahu. BTW, the text of Melakhim is not a part of the Torah.

As David pointed out, the context, of what was being discussed was summed up by me in post #81 HERE.

OK Yes, I know that the text of Melakhim is not part of the Torah.

Question. Would 2 Chronicle 26:22 where it says "Other activities of ‘Uziyahu, from beginning to end, were recorded by Yesha‘yahu the prophet, the son of Amotz." as dictated by God because a prophet wrote it?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

OK Yes, I know that the text of Melakhim is not part of the Torah.

Thus, you then know that the Torath Mosheh claim is that the Torah, as an entire text, was dictated by Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram with no input from Mosheh ben-Amram. Melakhim was written solely on the judgement of the Navi Yirmeyahu.

Question. Would 2 Chronicle 26:22 where it says "Other activities of ‘Uziyahu, from beginning to end, were recorded by Yesha‘yahu the prophet, the son of Amotz." as dictated by God because a prophet wrote it?

The answer to that is no. Hashem did not dictate the content of what Yeshayahu ben-Amotz hanavi wrote. The following will explain why.

This goes back to the difference in the definition of a prophet for Christians and a Navi for Torath Mosheh Jews.

According to Torath Mosheh, just because someone is a Navi (singular) doesn't mean that Hashem was speaking to them all the time or even that they all had the same experiences. Most Nevi'im only had one or handful of Navi experiences with Hashem. The vast majority of Nevi'im did not write anything and even the ones who wrote something did so for their own reasons, and many of them were not included in the Tanakh. The writings of the Nevi'im included in the Tanakh were only the ones that that Torath Mosheh Mosaic Court/Sanhedrin in Jerusalem led by Ezra Hasofer decided were relevant to the future of the Israeli/Jewish people.

The basic definition of a Navi is:

1. An Israeli/Jew who keeps Torath Mosheh.
2. Said Israeli/Jew is successful at keeping mitzvoth of the Torah at a high level.
3. Said Israeli/Jew is also skilled in various aspects of logic, in their own area of life.
4. Said Israeli/Jew also has to be physically fit, in line with Torath Mosheh.
5. Said Israeli/Jew experiences some element of what Hashem wants to them know in a dream or semi-sleep state.
6. What they receive is very symobolic and some of them receivet the explaination while others have to figure it out using the Torah that they know.
7. Some are able to give only the symbolism while others are able to give both the symbolism and the message within.
8. Some Nevi'im are also giving instruction to the Israeli/Jewish people (do this or don't do this). Some are only warning the Israeli/Jewish people. (don't do this/return to the Torah). Certain Nevi'im (plural) are not allowed to even start speaking unless they can provide details of an event that will happen in the future with 100% clarity and detail. I.e. it has to happen exactly as they describe it w/o question and they can be challenge for more such events until the Sanhedrin is satisfied.
9. Most Nevi'im have freedom in how they express what they experienced. Thus, some use writing of their own creation while others may use theatrics to get people's attention. Both types use the Torah as their guide on how to go about doing what they choose to do.

 

[Kenny]

Thus, you then know that the Torath Mosheh claim is that the Torah, as an entire text, was dictated by Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram with no input from Mosheh ben-Amram. Melakhim was written solely on the judgement of the Navi Yirmeyahu.

Yes, on the Torah.

It is possible on the Melakhim.

Thus, you then know that the Torath Mosheh claim is that the Torah, as an entire text, was dictated by Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram with no input from Mosheh ben-Amram. Melakhim was written solely on the judgement of the Navi Yirmeyahu.

The answer to that is no. Hashem did not dictate the content of what Yeshayahu ben-Amotz hanavi wrote. The following will explain why.

This goes back to the difference in the definition of a prophet for Christians and a Navi for Torath Mosheh Jews.

According to Torath Mosheh, just because someone is a Navi (singular) doesn't mean that Hashem was speaking to them all the time or even that they all had the same experiences. Most Nevi'im only had one or handful of Navi experiences with Hashem. The vast majority of Nevi'im did not write anything and even the ones who wrote something did so for their own reasons, and many of them were not included in the Tanakh. The writings of the Nevi'im included in the Tanakh were only the ones that that Torath Mosheh Mosaic Court/Sanhedrin in Jerusalem led by Ezra Hasofer decided were relevant to the future of the Israeli/Jewish people.

The basic definition of a Navi is:

1. An Israeli/Jew who keeps Torath Mosheh.
2. Said Israeli/Jew is successful at keeping mitzvoth of the Torah at a high level.
3. Said Israeli/Jew is also skilled in various aspects of logic, in their own area of life.
4. Said Israeli/Jew also has to be physically fit, in line with Torath Mosheh.
5. Said Israeli/Jew experiences some element of what Hashem wants to them know in a dream or semi-sleep state.
6. What they receive is very symobolic and some of them receivet the explaination while others have to figure it out using the Torah that they know.
7. Some are able to give only the symbolism while others are able to give both the symbolism and the message within.
8. Some Nevi'im are also giving instruction to the Israeli/Jewish people (do this or don't do this). Some are only warning the Israeli/Jewish people. (don't do this/return to the Torah). Certain Nevi'im (plural) are not allowed to even start speaking unless they can provide details of an event that will happen in the future with 100% clarity and detail. I.e. it has to happen exactly as they describe it w/o question and they can be challenge for more such events until the Sanhedrin is satisfied.
9. Most Nevi'im have freedom in how they express what they experienced. Thus, some use writing of their own creation while others may use theatrics to get people's attention. Both types use the Torah as their guide on how to go about doing what they choose to do.

I know there is a debate on whether the author was Yirmeyahu or Ezra. (Mechon-Mamre?) or perhaps, some by one and more by the other? Although most Jewish people ascribe it to Yirmeyahu there are others that ascribe it to even up to 5 people and that it was placed together as one.

Perhaps we will never know if Hashem's Spirit moved on the author(s). We do know there were prophecies within the books.

However, it definitely provides a great history of the great people called by Hashem. Having included in the TaNaKh does, IMO, elevate its value.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I know there is a debate on whether the author was Yirmeyahu or Ezra or perhaps, some by one and more by the other?

Both answers are true. I.e. Ezra Hasofer was a student of Barukh ben-Niryah. Barukh ben-Niryah was a student of Yirmeyahu. Ezra Hasofer and his Sanhedrin/Mosaic court was responsible for deciding what texts of the Nevi'im were to be kept and preserved.

Thus, Yirmeyahu started the process of writing the text of Melakhim and Ezra Hasofer only being another generation away from Yirmeyahu codified it. The text from Yirmeyahu and others, because obviously Yirmeyahu was relying information from others of his generation and previous ones, was collected together during the generation of Ezra Hasofer. Further evidence that the structure of the text was not "dictated" by Hashem. Thus the standards for exact word for word, line for line, space for space, textual preservation are not the same as those of a Torah scroll.

Although most Jewish people ascribe it to Yirmeyahu there are others that ascribe it to even up to 5 people and that it was placed together as one.

The view of these "nameless others" you mention are not a problem. As I stated above, there is no requirement from Torath Mosheh Jews for Yirmeyahu to be the "sole" author of every letter or sentence in the text of Melakhim.

Any other Torath Mosheh Jew who added to the text, or supplied informationt to Yirmeyahu, was a good thing because there was no requirement for the text to be only the work of Yirmeyhau. So, if 30,000 Torath Mosheh Jews contriduted to Sefer Melakhim, not a problem and we Torath Mosheh Jews are thankful for thier work. Again, further proof to the point I made earlier. So, Yirmeyahu and whoever else made it clear that the old man mentioned in the text was a false navi. (see post #77 where I explain this)

Perhaps we will never know if Hashem's Spirit moved on the author(s). We do know there were prophecies within the books.

Again, that is a Christian view of the Christian bible. We Torath Mosheh Jews know that the individual in the text of Melakhim that started this line of conversion was a false Navi, and thus that was the reason that he real Navi mentioned in the text met the fate he did because he listened to a false Navi. Lastly, as I mentioned about this issue Hashem did not call the individual a navi.

In order to understand what I mean, Post #81 and what is listed below.

 

[Kenny]

Both answers are true. I.e. Ezra Hasofer was a student of Barukh ben-Niryah. Barukh ben-Niryah was a student of Yirmeyahu. Ezra Hasofer and his Sanhedrin/Mosaic court was responsible for deciding what texts of the Nevi'im were to be kept and preserved.

Thus, Yirmeyahu started the process of writing the text of Melakhim and Ezra Hasofer only being another generation away from Yirmeyahu codified it. The text from Yirmeyahu and others, because obviously Yirmeyahu was relying information from others of his generation and previous ones, was collected together during the generation of Ezra Hasofer. Further evidence that the structure of the text was not "dictated" by Hashem. Thus the standards for exact word for word, line for line, space for space, textual preservation are not the same as those of a Torah scroll.



The view of these "nameless others" you mention are not a problem. As I stated above, there is no requirement from Torath Mosheh Jews for Yirmeyahu to be the "sole" author of every letter or sentence in the text of Melakhim.

Any other Torath Mosheh Jew who added to the text, or supplied informationt to Yirmeyahu, was a good thing because there was no requirement for the text to be only the work of Yirmeyhau. So, if 30,000 Torath Mosheh Jews contriduted to Sefer Melakhim, not a problem and we Torath Mosheh Jews are thankful for thier work. Again, further proof to the point I made earlier. So, Yirmeyahu and whoever else made it clear that the old man mentioned in the text was a false navi. (see post #77 where I explain this)



Again, that is a Christian view of the Christian bible. We Torath Mosheh Jews know that the individual in the text of Melakhim that started this line of conversion was a false Navi, and thus that was the reason that he real Navi mentioned in the text met the fate he did because he listened to a false Navi. Lastly, as I mentioned about this issue Hashem did not call the individual a navi.

In order to understand what I mean, Post #81 and what is listed below.

I do thank you for your very informative post.

It has given me pause to meditate on the information.

Certainly, I have never heard of this false prophet viewpoint. I understand that what you are saying is that, for you, it is historical in context but not dictated as in the Torah.

A different question...

In the historical review of the person you call "the false prophet", I remember quite clearly when it was said, "26 And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him."

I noticed that the person you called "false prophet, actually spoke "according to the word of the Lord"

Why do you think that the "false prophet" actually spoke the word of the Lord?

Second question, where do you get the position that it was this person started what you called "a lie"?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

A different question...In the historical review of the person you call "the false prophet", I remember quite clearly when it was said, "26 And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him."

Greetings Ken. To answer your quesstion the first step is to turn to the Hebrew text because this is easily answered by reading it in the language it was originally written in.

This is confirmed by the Aramaic Translation of the text. The highlighted section denotes that the false navi is not speaking about himself but the real navi.

I noticed that the person you called "false prophet, actually spoke "according to the word of the Lord". Why do you think that the "false prophet" actually spoke the word of the Lord?

First, anyone can quote things that Hashem gave to a Torath Mosheh Jew past or present. That doesn't mean that the person quoting something is a real navi. Remember the Torath Mosheh standard I gave HERE for a real navi.

Second, according to the Hebrew text the false navi is claiming that the real navi did not do what Hashem commanded the real navi to do. The false navi is admitting that the real navi had the the word of Hashem, and died because he did not heed it by listening to the false navi. If you look at the grammer in Hebrew, the false navi is not talking about himself with the statement (כדבר ה" אשר דבר לו). The purple and green is noting what the false navi said.

Second question, where do you get the position that it was this person started what you called "a lie"?

You may have to rephrase your question. I don't understand it based on how it is written. What I can say, is if you look at the below.

 

[Kenny]

Shalom

First, anyone can quote things that Hashem gave to a Torath Mosheh Jew past or present. That doesn't mean that the person quoting something is a real navi. Remember the Torath Mosheh standard I gave HERE for a real navi.

Second, according to the Hebrew text the false navi is claiming that the real navi did not do what Hashem commanded the real navi to do. The false navi is admitting that the real navi had the the word of Hashem, and died because he did not heed it by listening to the false navi. If you look at the grammer in Hebrew, the false navi is not talking about himself with the statement (כדבר ה" אשר דבר לו). The purple and green is noting what the false navi said.

I'm just not quite sure I have been convinced at this time...

1 And he cried unto the Ish HaElohim that came from Yehudah, saying, Thus saith Hashem, Forasmuch as thou hast defied the mouth of Hashem, and hast not been shomer over the mitzvah which Hashem Eloheicha commanded thee,

22 But camest back, and hast eaten lechem and drunk mayim in the makom, of the which Hashem did say to thee, Eat no lechem, drink no mayim; thy nevelah shall not come unto kever avoteicha.

It seems very clear that it was the prophet that lied that prophetically declared the word of Hashem.

You may have to rephrase your question. I don't understand it based on how it is written. What I can say, is if you look at the below.

I"m sorry--I may have misunderstood.

I believe you said that it was the false prophet who started the lie that the books of Kings was God dictated. Did I misunderstand?

So, if I understood correctly, how did we come to that conclusion?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Shalom I'm just not quite sure I have been convinced at this time...

Greetings. Please be aware. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are reading a Christian translation text and I am reading a Hebrew text that long predates your translation. Essentially, your understanding of your Christian translation is based on the translation and translator. What I am stating is on reading Hebrew and knowing thousands of years of Jewish discussion/description/etc. about the original Hebrew text.

1 And he cried unto the Ish HaElohim that came from Yehudah, saying, Thus saith Hashem, Forasmuch as thou hast defied the mouth of Hashem, and hast not been shomer over the mitzvah which Hashem Eloheicha commanded thee,

22 But camest back, and hast eaten lechem and drunk mayim in the makom, of the which Hashem did say to thee, Eat no lechem, drink no mayim; thy nevelah shall not come unto kever avoteicha.

Again the translation along with the attempted transliteration don't have any bearing. I have already shown what the actual Hebrew text states and how thousands of years of Torath Mosheh who also knew Hebrew stated the same thing I stated.

It seems very clear that it was the prophet that lied that prophetically declared the word of Hashem.

Again, that is your idea based on an English Christian translation. You didn't get that idea because you read and understand Hebrew. If your interpretation of the Christian English translation is what you say then for the Christian translation that is fine. I am reading Hebrew, so of course we won't see eye to eye on something like this.

I"m sorry--I may have misunderstood. I believe you said that it was the false prophet who started the lie that the books of Kings was God dictated.

That is a big misunderstanding your part. I never wrote anything like that. If go back to what David wrote, he got it right. Also, if you go back to the posts I referenced you will see what I wrote.

Did I misunderstand?

Yes, big time.

 

[Kenny]

That is a big misunderstanding your part. I never wrote anything like that. If go back to what David wrote, he got it right. Also, if you go back to the posts I referenced you will see what I wrote.

My sincerest apologies. I was really being transparent here.

PS.. I, as you said, don't read Hebrew so I am not able to really comment other than just ask questions and weigh your sincere statements

I, however, may not agree that the man was a "false prophet" because he lied. Is King David a prophet?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I, however, may not agree that the man was a "false prophet" because he lied.

As I mentioned before, the Christian idea of a prophet is different than the Torath Mosheh concept of a (נביא). Someone is a false navi, the minute they claim that Hashem in any fashion told them something that Hashem did not tell them. That is different than what you are saying. Lying is one thing, lying that Hashem told him something that Hashem didn't tell him makes a person a false navi.

Is King David a prophet?

Edit: There are some who say that Dawith Hamelekh was a (נביא) and there are others that say he was not. Again, the defintion (נביא) being used is the following.

1. An Israeli/Jew who keeps Torath Mosheh.
2. Said Israeli/Jew is successful at keeping mitzvoth of the Torah at a high level.
3. Said Israeli/Jew is also skilled in various aspects of logic, in their own area of life.
4. Said Israeli/Jew also has to be physically fit, in line with Torath Mosheh.
5. Said Israeli/Jew experiences some element of what Hashem wants to them know in a dream or semi-sleep state.
6. What they receive is very symobolic and some of them receivet the explaination while others have to figure it out using the Torah that they know.
7. Some are able to give only the symbolism while others are able to give both the symbolism and the message within.
8. Some Torath Mosheh Jews only received the ability to be a navi for their own sake. I.e. they were not being sent to go and warn or instruct others based on what they received.
9. Some Nevi'im are also giving instruction to the Israeli/Jewish people (do this or don't do this). Some are only warning the Israeli/Jewish people. (don't do this/return to the Torah). Certain Nevi'im (plural) are not allowed to even start speaking unless they can provide details of an event that will happen in the future with 100% clarity and detail. I.e. it has to happen exactly as they describe it w/o question and they can be challenge for more such events until the Sanhedrin is satisfied.
10. Most Nevi'im have freedom in how they express what they experienced. Thus, some use writing of their own creation while others may use theatrics to get people's attention. Both types use the Torah as their guide on how to go about doing what they choose to do.

 

[Kenny]

As I mentioned before, the Christian idea of a prophet is different than the Torath Mosheh concept of a (נביא). Someone is a false navi, the minute they claim that Hashem in any fashion told them something that Hashem did not tell them. That is different than what you are saying. Lying is one thing, lying that Hashem told him something that Hashem didn't tell him makes a person a false navi.

Yes, in the full technical sense, I would totally agree. But I can't just mine a certain verse at the expense of other verses:

11 Now there was a certain old prophet living in Bethel,

Very clearly stated that the old man indeed was a prophet. And, without a doubt, he prophesied the death of the disobedient prophet.

Now, did he become a false prophet after that event? We don't know. But at the time he lied about an angel speaking to him, he was a prophet.

Edit: There are some who say that Dawith Hamelekh was a (נביא) and there are others that say he was not. Again, the defintion (נביא) being used is the following.

Agree with the list... But, as a prophet David lied, murdered and committed adultery. Maybe there is more than just the list you gave?
List of Jewish Prophets

 

[Kenny]

According


The interaction was according to Paul and the unnamed author of Acts, who was supposedly the non-witness Luke (Luke 1:1-3), an supposed associate of Paul. Paul was declared a "brother" by the unknown author of 2 Peter, and one must keep in mind that Peter was the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, who wouldn't feed, care or tend the sheep, and who was to be "annihilated" during the same generation/"month" as Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13) according to (Zechariah 11:8).

I would have to agree with @metis
2 Peter 3:15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some thingshard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter acknowledged Paul

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, in the full technical sense, I would totally agree. But I can't just mine a certain verse at the expense of other verses:

11 Now there was a certain old prophet living in Bethel,

Very clearly stated that the old man indeed was a prophet. And, without a doubt, he prophesied the death of the disobedient prophet.

Thus, according to the Christian definition of a "prophet" he was a "prophet." According to Torath Mosheh he was a false navi, based on the defintions given earlier.

According to you, reading a Christian English translation "he without a doubt, he prophesied the death of the disobedient prophet." According to me, reading the Hebrew text, that is not at all what happened and your definition of what I prophet is doesn't match the Hebrew text.

Thus, Christianity has one view of their English translations and Torath Mosheh Jews have a compeletely different view based on the most ancient and authoratative Hebrew texts.

Based on all of the above, of course we are not going to see eye to eye.

Now, did he become a false prophet after that event? We don't know.

Let's agree to disagree about what we know because I read the Hebrew text. It clearly explained what happened, why, and when someone was who they were.

But at the time he lied about an angel speaking to him, he was a prophet.

According to Christian defintions of a prophet. According to Torath Mosheh he was a false navi.

Agree with the list...

Maybe you don't understand it, based on your comment below.

But, as a prophet David lied, murdered and committed adultery.

Actually not true. Dawith never claimed that Hashem told him to say something that Hashem never told him to say. I.e. the definition of a false navi is one who claims Hashem told them to say or do something Hashem never told them to do. Further, Christians have a set of views about "King David" based on Christian translation and Christian exegesis. Torath Mosheh Jews have a completely different view of Dawith Hamelekh based on the Hebrew text and also thousands of years of Torath Mosheh explaination of what the text means.

For example, if you are talking about Bat-sheva this video, in English, may explain the view of Torath Mosheh Jews on this.